 SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks |
Best Sportsbooks List
|
|
| |||||
| #1 FanDuel | SBR rating 4.8/5 | Review | #6 BetRivers | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review | #2 Caesars | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #7 Fanatics | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review |
| #3 DraftKings | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #8 Betway | SBR rating 3.8/5 | Review | ||
| #4 BetMGM | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #9 Borgata | SBR rating 3.5/5 | Review | ||
| #5 bet365 | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #10 ClutchBet | SBR rating 2.9/5 | Review | ||
Crazy... If u said pleaser maybe less crazy. Still get 4.5 w zona and 7.5 w titans. I could maybe buy that if shit goes just right.. Or even zona possibly winning I wouldn't call u too crazy, titans winning is sea? U crazy bro!!!Originally Posted by NardVa
Brad Jones out too. Don't bet GB unless you can name his replacement without looking it up.
Giants +7.5 WON
Headed in the right direction.
It didn't take very much to find your other post. My GED once again pays off!
Good on you for sleuthing the subtle nuances in the things I have written. You are REALLY onto something this time. YA GOT ME!
As for my posts being a waste of time, all my picks this season are posted. I believe in all the picks I posted in this thread. I also believe that at the end of this week a lot of folks will be talking about how it was a bad week for everyone.
YTD: 12-8-1
Be consistent in your insults, it's not too difficult to do.
Good luck this week! I don't like to see anybody lose, even arrogant ones.
Good call on the Giants. It's always nice to start the week with a winner.
Oh, so I'm the arrogant one?
Take a revisit to your first post towards me about correlated parlays.
And for the record, 8 of the matches that week had correlated parlays....6 were not.
many of those are public picks
Isn't this what they teach in Football 101 to 8 year olds? This is basically "don't turn the ball over". It took Tom Clements to teach Aaron Rodgers this?
Giants +7.5 WON
KC -9 WON
Tampa ML LOSS
Green Bay -3 LOSS
Cleveland ML LOSS
Carolina ML WON
St. Lous +7 WON
Pittsburgh ML WON
Cincin -7.5 LOSS
Tennessee +13.5
Denver -27.5
Arizona +11.5
New Orleans ML
Wahington +5.5
Indianapolis ML
Pretty pissed about Green Bay and Cincinnati but it could be worse I guess.
Afternoon games better pan.
Giants +7.5 WON
KC -9 WON
Tampa ML LOSS
Green Bay -3 LOSS
Cleveland ML LOSS
Carolina ML WON
St. Lous +7 WON
Pittsburgh ML WON
Cincin -7.5 LOSS
Tennessee +13.5 WON
Denver -27.5 LOSS
Arizona +11.5 LOSS
New Orleans ML LOSS
Wahington +5.5 LOSS
Indianapolis ML
Last edited by SteveRyan; 10-13-13 at 11:16 PM.
Guess their defense is a little better than you thought. Might want to try and actually watch 2013 football and forget about what you saw last year.
I was at a casino this weekend. Dude I talk to to at the book when he's workin there says this was the best week the books had in football by far.
Like you said earlier, they all think it's the defense that got shredded week one against San Francisco; getting Morgan Burnett back was BIG.
Yeah, you're sharp, real sharp! I quote a 20+ year record for whether faves or dogs go under or over, you counter with one week of results and tell me I am wrong!
Yep, you are too sharp for me!!!!!!
What a DF!
Who got BURIED this week was YOU!
Will your arrogance and stupidity continue?
FWIW dislike the OP because people post arrogant fvcking titles and get responses, while I quietly succeed and get not one comment because I didn't act like a know-it-all.
But are you trying to say that correlated parlays don't exist because OVERALL favorites go over 50.8% to over, and dogs 50.8% to the under? Obviously every favorite is not correlated to the over & vice versa, no one's saying that, or books would be out of business. But even a shade of .8% on each suggests some correlation, if you pick your spots...
In another thread I commented that favs are correlated with overs; Dogs are correlated with unders. Using last nights game as an example, San Diego covered the +2.5 and the total went under.
This was his response to my statement:
A famous myth perpetrated by ignorant touts such as Fezzik, VR, and other touts.
Favs who covered went over the total 50.8% of the time since 1989.
Dogs who covered went under the total 50.8% of the time since 1989.
Yeah, you quoted an accurate "sharp" angle.
Why don't you have the supporting data before you make incorrect statements?
Are you a "square" trying to appear to be "sharp"?
For what it's worth, I apologize for my awful picks this week.
5-10 I'm pretty sure. You were on wrong side of some pretty obvious plays.
This is the problem with not acting like a j@ck@$$ when posting plays. Books, locally atleast, had a record week and will be collecting a fortune. I also had a record week, capping it off with Dodgers and Chargers.. Wish ya'll could have ridden along with the big dog.
Don't apologize. Anyone worth anything has had a bad week. Keep posting picks and defending your plays.
Thanks, I appreciate that.
Will stick to my usual 4 or 5 picks and do more write-ups.
YTD - 18-17-1
Yeah, I'm asking him to defend the quote - read it earlier in the thread (though I will say its a stretch to say favorites are always correlated with overs, dogs w unders - the truth of it en masse is... apparently... .8%, which is not bad, but not worth betting on.. But there are definitely correlations like that out there).
And I don't really have a problem with you, I'm just jealous and bitter about the lack of responses in my thread.
True, it's not always correlated. I was just saying that more often than not they are. In my experience, there tends to be more correlated parlays from week to week than not.
To add to this, when you are done capping, if you come up with a non-correlated parlay you really need to take a closer look at what you have done. To me, non-correlated parlays are square bets, especially when taking a fave with a spread greater than -7 with the under. Depending upon how large the total is, the number of possible scores to make this a winner can be very slim. A lot of folks simply do not realize how slim it really is; they just assume the fave will cover and it will be a low scoring game.
No, I am not trying to say correlated parlays don't exist. They do and I have and will bet them.
BUT, to make a statement that was made in an extreme generalization is irresponsible, especially when it has only an .8% advantage. If YOU feel that is worth risking a wager on, go for it! Apparently you are forgetting that there is juice on wagers which makes your .8% correlation a loser in the long term.
I admire and respect anybody that posts their picks/wagers in a forum. But, when arrogant statements are attached to the picks, well, that leaves the door open to criticism.
However, that is classy for SteveRyan to apologize for his losing week. We've all been there, it sucks to lose.
I wish the best of luck to everybody this week. I'm only trying to use my experience and database to correct inaccuracies when I see them. I see incorrect statements in tout's write-ups and pregame videos all the time.
Wojo
think we discussed gb/bal extensively.. guess you wernt equipped to attack it
I stopped reading at Denver -27.5 and almost pissed my pants laughing. Nothing to see here. Dead as a hammer.
And if you had taken my picks up to where you stopped reading then you would have gone 6-4. Not so dead after all.I stopped reading at Denver -27.5 and almost pissed my pants laughing. Nothing to see here. Dead as a hammer.
Thats one way to look at it.6-9 is awful a fcking retarded monkey could pick better then you.
Dead as Travon Martin.
I was 12-8 before this week. That's 60%. There's posters on this board who are already in the negative still posting plays. I'm currently at 51%.
Do you post plays?
Reply With Quote
